"Acid Feedback" eh? well, if thats what the kids are calling it. I have suffered from it a bit in the past, but not to the extent where I wake up choking. Has this ever happened to you?

***Warning - do not read if you are have a nervous disposition***

Do you ever get indigestion where some stomach acid/vomit bubbles up your throat and into the back of your mouth to give you a horrible taste sensation?

Last night, I was asleep and this happened with such a volume of liquid as to make me wake up choking on it and I involuntarily spat it out everywhere. Presumably this is not classed as vomitting as there was no 'heaving' it just sort of bubbled up my throat.

Anyone ever experienced anything like this? I am quite worried about it, as it was such a strange thing to happen. I found it hard to get back to sleep afterwards and was very conscious of my levels of indigestion, worried that I would again find myself choking.

If no-one has heard of this, I will take the opportunity now to coin the phrase 'Chronic indigestion syndrome' (CIS to the layman)

Why should it "be left alone?" I'd be interested in your views of my counter-argument. I am not being hostile, I would just like an honest debate to keep the clock ticking over a bit more quickly. So, what say you?

I'm not getting uppity.

I am challenging the idea that an individual has a duty to "pay back" a particular state. I think many people are angry that foreigners "sponge" from Britain, but I would argue that we, along with other western countries get the best of the deal when it comes to migration between rich/poor countries.

When we are talking about migration between 2 western countries that are both part of the EU and have similar economies, and have (as far as I know, I stand to be corrected) no particular pattern in the flux of people, I don't think there is any cause for saying that people should have a moral obligation to "pay back" what the state have given them. I am no expert in politics or economics, so if I am wrong, please explain, I am genuinly interested in how a GB and NL could gain from people in each country feeling morally compelled to stay put.

Well, if you are of the opinion that killing animals is wrong then, yes thats logical. Personally, I believe in using animals as a resource for food, clothing etc. but I also believe in showing them respect and minimising cruelty. For me, killing a cow that can feed a massive amount of people and using the skin for leather etc. is OK. Killing 40 mink to make an expensive coat is not.

If there is a history of the NL taking people in before they move to GB to earn real money then, fair enough, you have a point, but surely that would be one for NL to tackle rather than an individual who is, rightly in my book, trying to get where they want to be given the opportunities presenting themselves.

But Golfpro, would it not be fair to say that there are likely to be a similar number of people migrating from GB to NL as vice-versa? So if you claim asylum in NL and "take more out than you put in" if you will, before coming to the UK and putting more in here, will things not just be balanced out by people doing the opposite?

I don't particularly like people who want to lazily sponge off the state, but I don't think people should feel compelled to personally pay back a specific country in the way you suggest. The upshot of people following this moral obligation would be that (assuming migration between GB and NL is equal) people on both sides would have less career mobility, would lose out individually, and both states would also be likely to miss out.

Dan,

Its a difficult one, because, as far as I can see, there is no obvious qualitative difference between farming a load of mink for fur, and farming pigs for bacon. (assuming both animals are kept in similar conditions.

For me its partly a scale issue: 40 odd mink for the sake of 1 coat vs. 1 pig for 1000 rashers of bacon (or whatever). I also think its a matter of respect. For me, keeping animals well before killing them and eating them gives them an honourable death (many will disagree). Sowing them to their mates and wearing them around the place is a bit grotesque in my opinion.

I do agree though that there is a certain level of hypocrisy shown by many people who hate the fur trade but are happy to plod around in leather shoes and scoff bacon butties.

Mapleleaf, I am disgusted at your insensitive comments. Of course Mink are cute. Look at their little faces. Cows are as well. I'll give you chickens, they aren't particularly cute, as adults anyway. The fluffy chicks are cute.

Chill out guys, I'm only messing.

I hope taking a PHD doesn't get me all up tight like all of you lot.

While I have wanted to do a PHD for a while, I have struggled to find people who have PHD's that I would like to be similar to. This is strange and has worried me, because in every other ambition I have, there are people who I aspire to become.

A key reason for me coming on this site was to find just 1 person who shares a similar sense of humour and disposition to myself, in order to reassure myself that doing a PHD won't make me "become" someone I don't like.

I am sad to announce that the recent "joke" of repeatedly dragging up old posts and answering them with amusing answers has confirmed my worst fears. Is this what I want to become? After deliberating long and hard, I have made the decision not to take on a PHD on thus basis.

My point was that the whole: you wouldn't say that to Muslims argument is used by christians quite a lot. To me, the reason why people are less inclined to critisise Islam is not because they feel it is due greater respect, but because Muslims are less tolerant of "insults".

Personally, if I was religious, I'd rather be regularly offended by heretics, than feel that people didn't offend my religion because they fear the consequences. I am talking more about journalists etc. rather than me writing anon on a message board.

I don't think Christians should use the "respect" held for Islam as the benchmark for how they should be treated.

I believe that beliefs, per se, don't necessarily demand respect. I judge everything on its individual merits. The fact someone believes something doesn't compel me to respect them, or their belief. That is my belief, so please respect it!

As for the whole offending Muslims vs Christians debate, I don't feel particularly scared of offending Muslims (though I wouldn't run up to them (nor christians) on the street and start shouting abuse at them or anything.

I don't see why religion should fit in the same bracket as Ethnic origin, age etc. If a man always spat in his pocket because he thought it was dirty to swallow saliva, and he didn't want to spit on the floor, you would see no problem with treating him as a fool. Likewise, if someone doesn't eat delicious bacon because the animal it comes from has feet that resemble those of a made up character's (the devil) then, I see them as fair game for fun poking.

The fact that millions of people share the same beliefs make no difference to me. The reason why people see christians as fair game, but not muslims is not because they respect Islam more. It is because when the rioting starts, the laughter stops. If I were the personification of a religion, I would rather be Christianity being openly mocked than Islam with people taking the piss behind my back because they think I'm a nutcase.

People are always keen to slate the popularly succesful. So Dan Browns book is not a bastion of historical truth? So what? It was an enjoyable page turner that sold massive amounts. If it was easy to make a book that enjoyable to such a wide audience, everyone would do it.

I say: hail Dan Brown for writing a book with such wide appeal and at the same time invigorating an interest in religion, art and history (three worthy subjects) in thousands of the most ignorant plebs to walk the planet.